How many users here realize that calling Lissamphibia (modern amphibians) Temnospondyli is the equivalent of calling birds dinosaurs? The consensus is nearly absolute, with the exception of David Marjanovic and Michel Laurin, who theorize that Lepospondyli gave rise to Lissamphibia, but their views are as marginal as Feduccia’s are in the world of ornithology regarding bird evolution.
It is truly fascinating to think that temnospondyls are still alive today.
There is even the hypothesis proposed by Pardo (2017) stating that Lissamphibia is not a monophyletic group, but that all three lineages are temnospondyls, and caecilians would be stereospondyls. The fossil in question is Chinlestegophis jenkinsi.
Is the japanese giant salamander basically the closest convergent thing we have to what these wouldve looked like?
>>5166752And the chinese species. The tail and body plan of salamanders are clearly plesiomorphic, so yes, they closely resemble their temnospondyl ancestors.
>>5165214I was not keyed in to recent amphibian research well enough to know this. That’s baller.
>>5166810Marjanovic and Laurin stick to the position regarding caecilians. They maintain that the issue is controversial and reject the monophyly of Lissamphibia, yet they have already taken for granted that Batrachia (Anura and Caudata) are nested within Temnospondyli. It is amusing to recall how, nearly twenty years ago, they asserted that Lepospondyli was monophyletic and included Lissamphibia; nowadays, however, the majority view is that Lepospondyli is polyphyletic, with its members scattered across the phylogeny of Carboniferous tetrapods.
>>5165214Why is he like this?
>>5167084What a beauty. The chinese one is even more impressive to be honest.>>5167100Platyhystrix baffles and stresses me out. I want to believe it was a chimera, but its fossil remains actually exist, and there are quite a few of them. What a marvelous amphibian. Amazingly, it belongs to the Dissorophoidea clade, the same lineage of temnospondyls that includes modern
>>5167100>>5167112>Appeared before dimetrodons even walked the earthEvery masterpiece has it's cheap copy.
>>5167112>the same lineage of temnospondyls that includes modern*modern amphibians (Lissamphibia).
>>5166810>>5166820The 2023 discovery of Funcusvermis relegated Marjanovic to a marginal position, though he struck back in 2024. Incidentally, what a childish and inappropriate name Funcusvermis is. The "vermis" part is fine (it means worm in latin), but why "Funcus"? It could easily have been named "Paleovermis", "Eovermis", and so on—something more serious and less vulgar.
>>5167205
>>5167206This critter even resembles a salamander of the genus Batrachoseps. You can clearly see how caecilians evolved from a body plan similar to that of salamanders and their temnospondyl ancestors.
>>5167245A species of the genus Pseudoeurycea.
>>5167113i like that the entire sailback thing was a fashion for an entire era and even animals that weren't closely related had sails for some fuckin reason.
>>5165216
>>5167474Nice.By the way. Does anyone have images of the Eocaecilia limb fossils?
>>5167526They possessed very small limbs.
>>5167526>EocaeciliaNigga, that's a snake.
We need to talk more about Amphibamiformes. By far the most important clade of temnospondys. the one that gave rise to modern amphibians. It is equivalent to Paraves, Avialae, or similar groups among dinosaurs.
>>5167532Amphibian are basically diet reptiles when think about it. Or is it the other way around?Salamanders = Lizards Eocaellians/Caecilians = Snakes Archegosauridae = Crocodilians Surprisingly they don't have a counterpart for turtles though despite many turtle-like animals convergently evolving.
>>5167805>Surprisingly they don't have a counterpart for turtles though despite many turtle-like animals convergently evolving.It's not that surprising, when you breathe through your skin, you're more or less locked out from growing a hard shell.What's more puzzling is that reptiles don't have an equivalent to frogs.
>>5165217This was almost a decade ago, in 2017:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVjzWcuQd8Pardo even discusses the lepospondyls and how they are a polyphyletic group. Very illuminating.
>>5167100what did its tadpole look like
>>5168540Most likely as a miniature version of an adult. Based on a study by Pardo from this year, it is assumed that the ancestral condition for most tetrapods did not involve a metamorphic phase with tadpoles. Although some temnospondyls are known to have undergone such a transformation, and Platyhystrix, in particular, is closely related to the Lissamphibia and to those temnospondyls (such as members of the clade Branchiosauridae) that are known to have gone through metamorphosis, but I believe it is more plausible that Platyhystrix did not have a tadpole stage.
>>5168540Here is the development of the postcranial skeleton in temnospondyls from small aquatic larva/juvenile to semi-terrestrial/terrestrial adult, exemplified by Archegosaurus.
>>5168559>I believe it is more plausible that Platyhystrix did not have a tadpole stage.Or perhaps they had a tadpole phase. At the very least, after reading the study of Rainer Schoch and Florian Witzmann, I am increasingly convinced that they underwent metamorphosis, perhaps much like salamanders. The are some different temnospondyl larvae.
>>5165214Yeah I realized previously.Dunno what else to say, really. Makes speculating on their appearances in life difficult I supposed; at least with dinosaurs you can cross birds with crocodilians to get a wider range in reconstruction.
>>5168574Yes, there is, in fact, a huge gap between amphibians, as tetrapod, and lungfish. Furthermore, amphibians, as anamniotes, are very distinct from amniote reptiles. Unfortunately, there are not many proxies for this gap, save for the extant species within Lissamphibia.
>>5167829aren't french people amniotes though?
>>5167435I hate how nothing today comes close, save I think a chameleon or small lizard or two, and even then, it isn't impressive.
